"Acceptance of payment for rent or rental arrears from this program shall constitute agreement by the recipient landlord or property owner . . . (iii) to not increase the monthly rent due for the dwelling unit such that it shall not be greater than the amount that was due at the time of application . . . (iv) not to evict for reason of expired lease or holdover tenancy any household on behalf of whom rental assistance is received for 12 months after the first rental assistance payment is received . . . . " (L 2021, ch 56, § 1, part BB, § 1, subpart A, sec 1, § 9 [2] [d] [iii]-[iv], as amended by L 2021, ch 417, § 2, part A, § 5 [emphasis added].)
Respondent is correct that Feuerman, as well as Tian and Kaba, are distinguishable from the instant case for the reason that the ERAP application, approval, and payment in Feuerman was made after the landlord commenced the holdover proceeding. In both Tian and Kaba, as is the case here, the{**80 Misc 3d at 589} ERAP application, approval, and acceptance of payment all occurred prior to the service of the notice of termination and commencement of the proceeding. Even so, while the Kaba and Tian courts' analyses are compelling, the court respectfully disagrees with their holdings, and respondent's argument, for several reasons.